Back
2022 Supreme(Gau) 811
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.
Dipak Chakraborty, S/o Lt Upendra Kumar Chakraborty – Appellant
Versus
Alok Kumar And 4 Ors. – Respondent
Cont.Cas(C) 646 of 2019
Decided on : 09-11-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR. B.K. DAS
For the Respondent: MR. P.N. GOSWAMI
Point of Law: Wilful and deliberate violation of an order of a Court which invites contempt jurisdiction cannot be equated with an execution case.
Headnote:
Wilful and Deliberate Violation of an Order - Contempt Jurisdiction - Contempt petition is instituted alleging wilful and deliberate violation of order – Circumstances do not satisfy requirement of a wilful and deliberate violation although it may not be a complete relief that petitioner may desire. Para 6
Finding of the Court :
Payment of an amount made to petitioner cannot be construed to be a wilful and deliberate violation of order of this Court - But, however, if petitioner is of view that actual amount to be paid to him would be Rs. 5,20,339/-and not Rs. 3,77,877/-, petitioner may file appropriate application before respondent authorities and in event such application is made, authorities to pass a reasoned order after giving petitioner a hearing - As regards other requirement of paragraph 9 of order in WP(C), where it is provided that in event petitioner is entitled to any travelling allowances, same may also be paid, petitioner may submit his claim for travelling allowances as provided in paragraph 9 and authorities may also pass a reasoned order on same - Reasoned orders are to be passed within a period of 1(one) month from date of receipt of applications that petitioner may submit.
Result: Contempt jurisdiction is rejected.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent contemnors in the PHED.
2. This contempt petition is instituted alleging wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated 01.11.2018 in WP(C) No. 7498/2017. The direction of this Court in the order dated 01.11.2018 at paragraph 8 thereof is as extracted below:
“8. This present petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to take necessary steps for payment of the certified expenses incurred by the petitioner for undergoing treatment in Bangalore for which Post-Facto Referral certificate has been issued, which exercise shall be undertaken within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today.”
3. There is a further provision in paragraph 9 of the said order dated 01.11.2018, which is as extracted below:
“9. Apart from payment of the aforesaid certified amount towards medical expenses, the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of the travelling allowances will also be examined by the authorities in accordance with the law and if entitled, shall be reimbursed to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.”
4. The direction contained in paragraph 8 of the said order is for payment of the certified expenses incurred by the petitioner for undergoing treatment within a period of six months for which Post-Facto Referral Certificate had been issued.
Paragraph 9 provides that apart from payment of the certified amount towards medical expenses, the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of the travelling allowances etc. shall also be examined and if entitled, to be reimbursed. Alleging wilful and deliberate violation of the aforesaid direction in the order dated 01.11.2018 in WP(C) No. 7498/2017, this contempt petition is instituted.
5. Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges upon that by a communication dated 05.03.2019, the Executive Engineer (PHE), Silchar Division No.-1, Silchar had communicated to the Chief Engineer (PHE) Water, Assam, that an amount of Rs. 5,20,339/-which had been worked out to be the entitlement by the Joint Director of Health Services, Cachar ought to be reimbursed. But instead of the amount of Rs. 5,20,339/-being paid, an amount of Rs. 3,77,877/-had been paid to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the certified expenses referred in the order dated 01.11.2018 in WP(C) No. 7498/2017 was Rs. 5,20,339/-and therefore, any amount paid to the petitioner which is less than the claimed amount is also a wilful and deliberate violation of the order of the Court.
6. Wilful and deliberate violation of an order of a Court which invites the contempt jurisdiction cannot be equated with an execution case, where every penny claimed for, unless honoured, the execution may continue nor it can be said that if any other view is taken by any other authorities as regards the amount of money to be paid based upon an evaluation of the entitlement as per the records, would also be a wilful and deliberate violation of the Court’s order. It is more so when there is no adjudication by the Court on the amount of the entitlement and there is only a passing observation on the claim made by the petitioner. Both the circumstances do not satisfy the requirement of a wilful and deliberate violation although it may not be a complete relief that the petitioner may desire.
7. We have also taken note that apart from the communication dated 05.03.2019, there is another communication by the Executive Engineer (PHE), Silchar Division No.-1 dated 20.03.2018 which provides that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,77,877/-being the amount to be reimbursed. In other words, there is a divergence of view within the same Executive Engineer (PHE), Silchar Division No.-1, as to the actual entitlement of the petitioner. Therefore, the payment of an amount of Rs. 3,77,877/-made to the petitioner cannot be construed to be a wilful and deliberate violation of the order of this Court.
